DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 12/15/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a continuation of 17/814580, which is now US Patent No. 12205142.
Examiner further notes that 17/814580 is a continuation of three other applications, which are now US Patent Nos. 11430008, 9779417, 9015062.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 6/20/13, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12205142. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions describe a method for: creating a first data store on a first electronic device of a user, the first data store including activity data of the first electronic device and a unique user identifier associated with the user; creating a second data store on a second electronic device of the user, the second data store including activity data of the second electronic device and the unique user identifier; synchronizing, using the unique user identifier, the first data store, the second data store, and the remote data store; receiving a request from a user device for content; and providing the electronic content to the device that requested the content. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kay (9535755) in view of Harb (20140046775) and in further view of Stanger (20130091146).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Kay discloses a system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
"creating a first data store on a first electronic device of a user, the first data store including demographic information of the user based on the user's use of the first electronic device and a unique user identifier associated with the user" (Fig. 2 #110A-B; Col. 2, Line 58 – Col. 3, Line 10; Col. 5, Line 65 – Col. 7, Line 12. Temporary memory is created on user devices. The data and data store are associated with a user identifier and activity (in the form of email and calendar activities));
"creating a second data store on a second electronic device of the user, the second data store including activity data of the second electronic device and the unique user identifier" (Fig. 2 #110A and B; Col. 2, Line 58 – Col. 3, Line 10; Col. 5, Line 65 – Col. 7, Line 12. Temporary memory is created on multiple user devices. The data and data store are associated with a user identifier and activity (in the form of email and calendar activities));
"synchronizing, using the unique user identifier, the first data store and the second data store with a remote data store" (Fig. 2; Col. 6, Lines 14 – 53. The devices (and their respective data stores) are synchronized with a remote server with a database using the user identifier, thereby teaching synchronization of both the first and second data stores with the remote data store);
Kay does not appear to explicitly describe "the first data store including demographic information of the user based on the user's use of the first electronic device.”
Stanger, however, discloses "creating a first data store on a first electronic device of a user, the first data store including demographic information of the user based on the user's use of the first electronic device and a unique user identifier associated with the user" (Para. 0005, 0027, 0045. Stanger teaches that user movement through venues constitutes device activity from which demographic information including age, gender, income, and education is derived and stored on the mobile device. Claim 22. Stanger further discloses associating the demographic profile with a mobile station identifier.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the demographic profiling teachings of Stanger with the multi-device synchronization system of Kay. One would have been motivated to do so because building a demographic profile from user device activity and associating it with a user identifier (as taught by Stanger) would enrich the synchronized data store of Kay with user demographic data, enabling more precise and personalized data collection across the user's devices.
Finally, Kay and Stanger do not appear to explicitly describe "receiving a request from the second electronic device of the user for electronic content, the request associated with the unique user identifier," and "based on the synchronized remote data store, providing the electronic content to the second electronic device of the user."
Harb, however, discloses "receiving a request from the second electronic device of the user for electronic content, the request associated with the unique user identifier" (Paragraphs 42, 44, and 131. Supplemental graphical ad content is requested by the user device that is associated with a unique identifier.); and
"based on the synchronized remote data store, providing the electronic content to the second electronic device of the user" (Paragraph 131. The synchronized remote server provides electronic ads to the user's synchronized device(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the content delivery teachings of Harb with the combined system of Kay and Stanger. One would have been motivated to do so because incorporating the targeted content delivery system of Harb into the demographically-enriched, multi-device synchronization framework of Kay and Stanger would enable the delivery of demographic-based electronic content to the user's devices, thereby maximizing relevance and user engagement.
Claims 2, 9, and 16: The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above. Harb, however, further discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request for a graphical element from the first electronic device (Paragraphs 47, 89, 101, and 131. The user device requests additional graphical content in the form of ads); determining, based on the activity data in the first data store and/or the unique user identifier, the graphical element from a plurality of graphical elements (Paragraphs 42 and 44. Content is selected and provided to the user based on a unique identifier); and providing the graphical element to the first electronic device (Fig. 5; Paragraphs 89 and 131. The graphical ad content is provided to the user on their device.).
The rationale for combining Harb with Kay/Stanger is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above. Harb, however, further discloses a method wherein the graphical element comprises a digital advertisement. (Figs. 5 and 9a. Paragraph 65).
The rationale for combining Harb with Kay/Stanger is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kay/Stanger/Harb in view of Rashid (10057318).
The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method for determining a user-generated event; updating the first data store based on the user-generated event; and synchronizing the first data store of the first electronic device and the second data store of the second electronic device by modifying activity data in the second data store on the second electronic device.
Rashid, however, discloses a method for determining a user-generated event; updating the first data store based on the user-generated event; and synchronizing the first data store of the first electronic device and the second data store of the second electronic device by modifying activity data in the second data store on the second electronic device. (Fig. 3; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col. 2, Line 8; Col. 4, Lines 26 - 44. The user performs an action on a folder on one of their synchronized devices, and the other synced devices automatically update their respective corresponding folders based on the action from the device being used by the user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Rashid with those of Kay/Stanger/Harb. One would have been motivated to do this in order for a user to access and edit content on one computer, rather than having to perform the same action on the same folder on several devices.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kay/Stanger/Harb in view of Hudgeons (20100250653).
Claims 5 and 12: The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the first data store is a sandboxed storage system associated with a browser application.
Hudgeons, however, discloses a method wherein the first data store is a sandboxed storage system associated with a browser application. (Paragraphs 24 and 26. The sandboxing system is associated with a web browser.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Hedgeons with those of Kay/Stanger/Harb. One would have been motivated to do this in order to create a restricted environment in which certain functions are prohibited thereby providing limitations on what system resources an application can request or access. Hudgeons, Paragraph 24.)
Claims 6, 13, and 19: The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method for generating a first instance identifier associated with the first electronic device; and associating the first instance identifier with the unique user identifier, and wherein the first instance identifier is associated with a sandboxed storage system, and the sandboxed storage system is associated with a browser application.
Hudgeons, however, discloses a method for generating a first instance identifier associated with the first electronic device; and associating the first instance identifier with the unique user identifier, and wherein the first instance identifier is associated with a sandboxed storage system, and the sandboxed storage system is associated with a browser application. (Paragraph 26. User actions are recorded by a cookie on a web browser, which is used to identify the activity on a browser in a sandboxed environment.).
The rationale for combining Hudgeons with Kay/Stanger/Harb is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 7, 14, and 20: The Kay/Stanger/Harb combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method for generating a first instance identifier associated with the first electronic device; and associating the first instance identifier with the unique user identifier, wherein the first instance identifier is associated with a domain cookie storage system of a browser application. (Paragraph 26. User actions are recorded by a cookie on a web browser, which is used to identify the activity on a browser in a sandboxed environment.).
The rationale for combining Hudgeons with Kay/Stanger/Harb is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Garcia et al. (9633125), directed to method for enabling users to synchronize, manage, and share folders across a plurality of devices.
Freedman et al. (20130332846), directed to an extensible application state preservation architecture.
Sharma et al. (20130297662), directed to a secure virtual file management system.
Trainor et al. (20190130445), directed to a method for cross-domain tracking for context aware mobile devices.
Gafni et al. (10567395), directed to a method for detecting malicious web content by emulating user behavior and user environment.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s additional remarks have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the modified grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621